Allowed¶14

Bheema Ram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2026BAIL/2635/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2635 of 2026; decided May 7, 2026; bail under S.483 BNSS 2023; Case Crime No.317 of 2025, PS Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh; Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS; Sections 60, 63 Excise Act; illegal foreign brand liquor; 4032 bottles recovered; parity with co-accused Yogesh Kumar (Bail No.1785 of 2026, order dated 03.04.2026); charge sheet filed; custody since 14.10.2025; bail allowed; personal bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; conditions under S.351 BNSS appearance; no expression on merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Bheema Ram in Case Crime No.317 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(v); breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Bheema Ram vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Bheema Ram should be released on bail in Case Crime No.317 of 2025 (Police Station Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh) during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Court's answer

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from the record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: no inducement/threat/promise or tampering with evidence, no pressurising or intimidating prosecution witnesses, personal presence at opening of case/framing of charge/statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, and presence on each date personally or through counsel; breach of conditions is a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶15

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the determination of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court remains absolutely free to arrive at independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Bheema Ram in Case Crime No.317 of 2025, Police Station Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 60 and 63 of the Excise Act, arising from alleged recovery of 4032 bottles of illegal foreign brand liquor from a vehicle in which the applicant and co-accused were found sitting. Charge sheet filed; applicant in custody since 14.10.2025; co-accused Yogesh Kumar already granted bail by the same Court on 03.04.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1785 of 2026 and the applicant's role was urged to be not distinguishable. Considering the totality of facts and evidence without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court held it a fit case for bail and allowed the application, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions regarding non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, presence at specified trial stages, no adjournment when witnesses are present, and attendance on each date; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation. Observations confined to the bail determination, leaving the trial court free to reach independent conclusions.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2635 of 2026

¶3

Bheema Ram

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 69

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri S.D. Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.317 of 2025, under Sections 318(4),338,336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 60, 63 of Excise Act, registered at Police Station Kandhrapur, District Azamgarh, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that co-accused Yogesh Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1785 of 2026. It is further submitted that the role of the applicant is not distinguishable from the role of the co-accused Yogesh Kumar. It is further submitted that as per first information report, the applicant and co-accused were found sitting in the vehicle, in which, some illegal foreign brand liquor amounting to the tune of 4032 bottles are said to have been recovered. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2025, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

BAIL No. 2635 of 2026

¶11

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶13

Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. Co-accused Yogesh Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1785 of 2026. It is further submitted that the role of the applicant is not distinguishable from the role of the co-accused Yogesh Kumar. As per first information report, the applicant and co-accused were found sitting in the vehicle, in which, some illegal foreign brand liquor amounting to the tune of 4032 bottles are said to have been recovered. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2025.

¶14

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Bheema Ram involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned :-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶20

BAIL No. 2635 of 2026

¶21

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶25

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶26

May 7, 2026

¶27

RKM

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bheema Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheema Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lal Babu Yadav vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Anees Ansari vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Kuraishi @ Babli vs State of U.P.

Arshad Ali vs State of U.P.

Rahul Singh vs State of U.P.

Mohan vs State of U.P.